Adrian Sanchez Sigala v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADRIAN SANCHEZ SIGALA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 23-498
Agency No.
A216-187-070
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 28, 2024**
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON, LEE, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Adrian Sanchez Sigala (Sanchez Sigala), a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
summarily dismissing his untimely administrative appeal. We have jurisdiction
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 1 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 23-498
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
“We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s summary dismissal of an
appeal. . . .” Nolasco-Amaya v. Garland, 14 F.4th 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2021)
(citation omitted).
The BIA informed Sanchez Sigala that his appeal was rejected because
“[t]he filing fee paid online [was] invalid as the electronic payment could not be
collected,” and advised Sanchez Sigala that his appeal must be received “within the
prescribed time limits.” Sanchez Sigala’s counsel subsequently filed a motion to
accept a late appeal premised on his assertion that his caseload precluded him from
timely filing the notice of appeal. However, the BIA summarily dismissed
Sanchez Sigala’s appeal as untimely because Sanchez Sigala did not demonstrate
“exceptional circumstances” to justify his untimely appeal.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it summarily dismissed Sanchez
Sigala’s untimely appeal. See Alcarez-Rodriguez v. Garland, 89 F.4th 754, 759
(9th Cir. 2023) (explaining that “[t]he BIA abuses its discretion when it acts
arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law”) (citation, alteration, and internal
quotation marks omitted). Sanchez Sigala does not assert any colorable error in
the determination that he failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify
his untimely appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(G) (stating that “[a] single
[BIA] member or panel may summarily dismiss any appeal or portion of any

-- 2 of 3 --

3 23-498
appeal in any case in which . . . [t]he appeal is untimely”).1
PETITION DENIED.2
1 Sanchez Sigala maintains that the BIA abused its discretion because it summarily
dismissed his appeal “for what should be considered a minor administrative or
clerical error in payment.” However, the BIA did not dismiss the appeal due to
issues involving payment of the fee. Instead, Sanchez Sigala’s counsel
acknowledged that he did not timely file the notice of appeal, and it was on that
basis that the BIA summarily dismissed the appeal.
2 Sanchez Sigala’s motion to stay removal, Dkt. 2, is denied. The temporary stay
of removal shall remain in place until the mandate issues.

-- 3 of 3 --